Argentine Philornis Meinert species (Diptera: Muscidae) with synonymic notes
Author
Couri, Márcia S.
Author
Antoniazzi, Leandro R.
Author
Beldomenico, Pablo
Author
Quiroga, Martin
text
Zootaxa
2009
2261
52
62
journal article
40484
10.5281/zenodo.190768
77b7cc97-1e75-4dd1-b0ba-3d26e853674d
1175-5326
190768
Philornis angustifrons
(
Loew, 1861
)
Hylemyia angustifrons
Loew, 1861
: 41
.
Syntypes
male and female, not found (not in MCZ or ZMHB). Type-locality:
Cuba
.
Described in the genus
Hylemyia
by
Loew (1861)
, this species was based on material from
Cuba
. According to
Carvalho
et al
. (2005)
,
syntypes
(male and female) were not found in MCZ or ZMHB.
This species has been mistakenly recorded from
Argentina
by
Garcia (1952)
. In synonymy with it is
Mydaea anomala
(Jaennicke, 1867)
, originally described as
Mesembrina anomala
, also from
Cuba
. This species is not the same as
Mydaea anomala
of
Nielsen (1913)
(=
Philornis anomala
of
Aldrich 1923
), which was described as
P
.
nielseni
by Dodge (1968).
Both
Stein (1918)
and Dodge and Aitken (1968) mentioned that this species shows considerable intraspecific variation, e.g., in size and colour and, “likewise there is much variation in the puparia of such species as
trinitensis
,
sanguinis
and
deceptivus
, in general the larger puparia are dark brown with a small deep pit, whereas the smaller puparia are light brown with the pit broad and shallow (Dodge & Aitken 1968: 135).
Other references to the names
angustifrons
and
anomala
in
Argentina
refer to
anomala
of
Nielsen (1911
,
1913
).
Even the synonymy of
P
.
angustifrons
(Loew)
with
anomala
Nielsen
was a confused interpretation by
Aldrich (1923)
.
The name
P
.
angustifrons
of
Garcia (1952)
also does not correspond to this species. He used this name, following Aldrich’s (1923) synonymy. This synonymy must not be accepted.
Aldrich (1923)
used Nielsen’s (1911, 1913) figures to represent the posterior spiracular slits of the puparia of
M
.
torquans
Nielsen
and
M
.
anomala
of Nielsen (not Jaennicke) respectively. But on page 307, when discussing the synonymy with
angustifrons
Loew
, he used the name
anomala
referring to
M
.
anomala
Jaennicke
and not
M
.
anomala
of Nielsen. This is clear because he mentioned that “both species are described from
Cuba
, clearly referring to
angustifrons
Loew
and
anomala
Jaennicke. Also
,
M
.
anomala
of
Nielsen 1913
(slits figured in his Fig. 3) could not be
P
.
angustifrons
Loew
, as the posterior spiracular slits of this species are very sinuous, much more similar to those of
P
.
pici
, illustrated in his Fig. 5.
Returning to Garcia’s (1952)
angustifrons
, his description, based on three females and one male (taken as larvae from a young chicken) from Monte Bello (Tucumán), is not very detailed, but differs from the true
P
.
angustifrons
in some aspects such as general colour of the thorax, r-m cross vein with a small mark and the large frons of the female with almost parallel margins. He described the female, but his Figure 1 (op. cit.: 279) shows the head of a male that is also not of
P
.
angustifrons
(as also observed by Dodge 1968). By mistake he mentioned the author of this species as (Jaenn., 1866) (see also Dodge 1968).
Dodge (1968) considered that Garcia’s (1952)
angustifrons
could be
anomala
of
Nielsen (1913)
, but the male head illustrated in his Figure 1 “fits neither
nielseni
nor
angustifrons
(p. 158). He doubtfully included
Philornis angustifrons
(Jaenn., 1866)
of
Garcia (1952)
in synonymy with
P
.
nielseni
.
Dodge and Aitken (1968) redescribed and
Couri (1984)
diagnosed
P
.
angustifrons
. The species shows intra-specific variation in colour, size, puparial concavity (depth and rugosity) and male surstyli (Dodge & Aitken 1968;
Couri 1984
).